JohnPowell wrote:
The state doesn't take away people's right to speak to help disabled people. No one claims that real disabled people are a leech on society, they claim people who are taking disabilities are.
Interesting cause there's still an apartheid System in the West Bank in Palestine. The odd thing is that there are moves to criminalise calling Israel a racist state.
Well, I'm not sure where you are from (I'm unsure as to whether you are being serious with Palestine or not tbh), but in the UK 2010 General Election, one of the parties standing for election had very anti-disabled policies in its manifesto, however, had made an effort to not mention this in any of its interviews, as it knew the backlash it would have received. Fortunately this policy was mentioned in the media, and they were forced to backtrack from this policy. A lot of people are scared to spout anti-disabled rhetoric due to the laws surrounding hate crime in the UK. My point is, if laws against hate speech were rescinded, that parties such as this, and people who support these parties, may begin to try and get more of the public to listen to what they have to say. Everyone loves a scapegoat, and if there is a severe economic disaster, people may try and say it's time to revive eugenics to get rid of the disabled as they are a massive drain on resources which could be better spent on those who are healthy and can properly contribute to society. It's far-fetched, I realise that, but it's still a possibility, which is why I believe that there should be a fine balance between free speech and laws to protect marginalised groups (such as if what was said was meant to incite hatred - it should be punished, but if it was said in a sitcom as a controversial joke, it shouldn't be. It should be based on the context).
I know. I'm a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Labour Party leader), who is very critical of the state of Israel and a supporter of Palestine, and I agree with him that Israel is essentially pursuing a policy of apartheid against Palestinian Arabs. This should not equate to antisemitism, as it is not criticising Jewish people, rather the government of a Jewish country. What would be next? That we can't criticise African nations because it would be racist? As I said - context needs to always be considered. If it is criticising a nation or its government - and it is not BECAUSE they are Jewish or Muslim or whatever, that they are being criticised, it should not be a criminal offence. IF someone is saying disabled people are ret*ds, are a drain on health and social care and therefore not of use to society, I would say that this is trying to incite hatred and fear and therefore should be classed as hate speech and punished accordingly.
sly279 wrote:
Words suck but they don't physically harm us.
Yes, this is true. My point is that if it is trying to incite hatred amongst people who may then try to cause physical or mental harm to a group due to getting brainwashed by the rhetoric of the people spouting whatever crap it is.
So if they had been more open about it they would have been less likely to get votes. It's not an argument to take freedom of speech away. 'Hate speech' is just a phantom nonsense created to silence dissent. I think the only thing that should be criminalized is a threat and yes that includes inciting violence. Trouble is the establishment plays with what incitement is. And you just did it yourself by saying insulting someone is inciting hatred.
It will come into law that calling Israel a racist state will be a crime.
26 Oct 2018, 11:34 am
